How come historically the authoritarian far right and the authoritarian far left always hate each other even though...

Me an intellectual, I never pick a side, not ever really would change if I comitted suicide.

People only care about cultural issues.

Right-wing is a shitty term that means a hundred things, but "kill the jews" isn't one of them.
I repeat, slaughter of jews is not a typical right wing policy.

The Nazis hated the Jews for culturally and racially polluting their nation not because they used money.

They hated the jews because of Ludenmeme's theory that he was winning WWI until the communist clubs (largely jewish) had that riot back home and supposedly sabotaged his successful campaign.

I myself as well feel like that this world is too complicated for "all x are bad so they should die" or "if we all get along things should be fine"

I believe the only reason radicals of each side exist is because they are so lazy they have to make things simpler for themselves when it comes to political thought. And what's simpler then a "I am right, he is wrong" attitude ?

It's hilarious how threatened you faggpts get when someone says they're centrist.

Socially speaking Communism is based on achieving an egalitarian society whilst Fascism believes that inequality and social hierarchy are a necessity for society and that the state (Or race if Nazi) is the most important part of society. I'll throw liberalism in this for comparisons sake (and because I'm a cheeky liberal) but they believe that maximizing individual autonomy is the main point of politics.
Economically Authoritarian Left has complete control of the means of production to achieve their aforementioned goal whilst Authoritarian Right has private business which is guided by the state to benefit society as a whole and Liberalism believes individuals should own private business with little or no state influence depending on the liberal.
In terms of end games for Communism it seeks to make all nations communist and then have an egalitarian world by abolishing all soviet positions so everyone truly is equal. Fascism seeks to recreate a romanticized past of its host nation like Italy's new Roman empire or Hitlers noble peasant society (along with eviction/extermination of lesser races). Liberalism seeks to make all nations become peaceful through democracy and trade as seen in the democratic peace theory.

TL:DR
Ideologies can be summed up by what they view as most important aspect of society:
>Fascism = The State
>Communism = The Collective
>Liberalism = The Individual
Economically speaking Communism and Liberalism are arch enemies (Collective/Private industry)
Socially speaking Liberalism and Fascism are arch enemies (Individuality/State control)
Structurally speaking Fascism and Communism are arch enemies (Equality/Hierarchy)

OP's clearly an idiotic centrist trying to paint all of his political enemies under one flag though.

Communists:
>Dude we need to start a violent revolution to overthrow the globalist capitalist elite and put a totalitarian dictatorship in power to serve the interests of the people
Nazis:
>Dude we need to start a violent revolution to overthrow the globalist capitalist Jew elite and put a totalitarian dictatorship in power to serve the interests of our people
Communists:
>What no you can't do that our backer Mr. Soros told us Jews are the good guys despite owning all the world's capital

The power of money my friend

>Dude we need to start a violent revolution to overthrow the globalist capitalist elite and put a totalitarian dictatorship in power to serve the interests of the people
Except the Socialism in One Country was supposed to theoretically one day lead to world wide revolution when the other capitalist nations had fallen of their own will. Also the Nazis thought it was also a communist world wide conspiracy.

What we call left or right today has little to do with how the world was 100 years ago, that's why.

People are also just obsessed with WWII and think Nazism and the USSR were really different. They were both dictatorships and were more similar to each other than either are to any modern political ideology.

A lot of morons also want to equate modern politics to those ideologies, thinking all socialist policy is communism and the like.

The USSR was also very antisemitic.

You /pol/ tards always complain about Soros, but have no idea who the Koch brothers are.

>What no you can't do that our backer Mr. Soros
Seriously, when did "Soros is a commie" meme fucking start?

That guy literally dedicated his wealth to fighting communists. He bankrolled Anti-Soviet propaganda (Radio Free Europe, anyone?). When the collapse of communist rule happened in Europe, he bankrolled an American university in Hungary to "rehabilitate" Hungarians into the wider world.

>The USSR was also very antisemitic.
The Bolsheviks were mainly Jewish and got preferential treatment in the Gulags. Just because Stalin was oppressive to everybody (especially the religious) does not make the USSR an anti-Semitic state. Stalin even had affairs with Jewish women

Then again Jews are always pretty touchy, so anything that it remotely against them and their collective interests is anti-Semitic , and I guess margsis lebinism was an authoritarian secular state, so that in itself would be considered anti-semitic

>When did the Soros was a communist
*Cultural Marxist
>Meme begin
Probably when he began funding FEMEN and then donated a bunch of money to charity groups linked to ANTIFA, although that last one was indirectly.

He probably heard of "anti-fascism" and though
>Oy vey, that sounds like a nice group of goyim
Because he didn't know they were mainly ancoms , and so he just threw money at them until he found out that they weren't capitalists

>mainly Jewish
You mean Latvian, right?

>The before I became a fascist I was a Chomskyite anarchist and know who both are

>*Cultural Marxist
Really? Did he wrote works accusing capitalism of turning culture into a profit-driven commodity alienated from the common people?

>Probably when he began funding FEMEN and then donated a bunch of money to charity groups linked to ANTIFA, although that last one was indirectly.
None of these are threat to capitalism.

...

They had common ground

Nope, Jewish. I like how people ignore Robert Wilton just because he reports things they don't like
heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

They were praised by jews everywhere

>Did he wrote works accusing capitalism of turning culture into a profit-driven commodity alienated from the common people?
>Comparing the historical meaning to the colloquial
No, but he probably does engage in an anti-dialogical rant about how anyone who is right wing is a pathology that can be measures on the F scale which comes from family issues, therefore instead of actually talking points with right wingers you can just psychoanalyze them ad infinitum
>None of these are threats to capitalism
You realize antifa and other ancom.black Bloc groups join the PKK and become Peshmerdas , or bomb people in Greece, right? FEMEN also promotes anti-traditional gender roles and is basically Soros funding SJW-ism. Although he did defund it when it tried to go to Israel, funny enough

>but many of their goals align
They are in direct competition you simpleton
>but they could cooperate to implement some common policies they like
You're thinking in terms of parliamentary politics instead of totalitarian ideological darwinism

>heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html
Is this a joke? This is your source, lol?

>This is your source
You realize what I posted has sources in it you can look up for yourself, right tovarische :DDD ?

>Ad verecundium

It doesn't cite any serious sources.

>The most detailed description of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik ‘revolution comes from Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times. In 1920 he published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government.
This is not a reliable source. Simple. It's a biased account of one anti-Semitic man. Do you even know how historians work?

>This is not a reliable source
>Oh gawd, he didn't like da joos therefore he must be wrong/lying

Also, don't forget
>In the War Records Division of the United States National Archives there is filed a report from an American Intelligence operative in St. Petersburg. Under Record Group 20; Records of the American Expeditionary Forces Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, G2 Intelligence wrote, “The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type.”

>Also in the U.S. National Archives are two telegrams sent by American diplomats in Russia. State Department document 861.00/1757 sent on 2 May 1918 by U.S. Consul Summers in Moscow relates, “Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population.” Document 861.00/2205 from Consul Caldwell in Vladivostock on 5 July 1918 describes, “Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type.”

Far-right authoritarian would be a feudal monarchy.

Also, you realize that the source for your statistics comes from a politician in the United States, right? You really want to argue on the basis of the reliability of the sources?

one involved killing everyone and the other involved killing only foreigners

>National """Socialism"""
Except the workers didn't become their own owners , taking back their surplus value, and instead the economy was largely privatized and the one party state became a quasi aristocracy? The only thing socialistic about natsoc was workplace safety standards increasing, increasing minimum wage, making it a legal right to work, and increasing vacation days in a year. Otherwise it was a Keynesian economy.

I'm sure you've never studied history. These are not real sources. All accounts such as these are biased. This is only a proof that anti-Semitic propaganda was very popular in post-war Europe and that some Jews were prominent figures in the bolshevik movement so they were more visible than the others.
If you want to know how many bolsheviks were Jews you have to find a list of ALL party members and reliable information about their ethnicity/religion/parents and so on.

Of course your site is full of shit anyway.

>Moscow’s puppet government in Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s was run by another Jew, Rudolph Slansky.
Why Slansky and not Gottwald? Is this because Gottwald was not a Jew?

>Jacob Berman gradually eclipsed the others until he became supreme dictator by himself. Also, Gomulka’s wife was a Jewess.
Except this is not true at all. The most important person in early communist Poland was Bierut (who was a Pole).

>Also, Gomulka’s wife was a Jewess.
Which proves what exactly? Because Gomulka was responsible for the fall of Berman and then in 1968 together with Moczar for anti-Zionist campaign in Poland.

And you realize that politicians aren't the best sources for any statistics?

Of course your site is full of similar lies.

>In fact, every secret police chief in Soviet history has been a Jew, from the first Uritsky to the most recent, the murderous Beria.
Beria wasn't a Jew and Uritsky was a chief of Cheka in Petrograd, not the director of Cheka.

>Everything that portrays Jewish people in a negative light is false a priori
Okay pal, whatever you want to say with you're brilliant levels of "I don't like this therefore it Is false" deductions . A true historian by all accounts.

Right. Which is why you are citing a politician's speech while claiming that any contradictory information is inherently false because anything that is anti-semitic has to be false, it just has to.

It has to be lies a priori
It has to be propoganda a priori
It has to be staged a priori
>Beria wasn't a Jew
*Was a Jew

I also love that every claim you make has to ignore every other fact the site posts
>Stalin had three wives, all of them Jewesses. The first was Ekaterina Svanidze who bore him one son, Jacob. His second wife was Kadya Allevijah. She bore him a son Vassili and a daughter Svetlana. His second wife died in mysterious circumstances, either by committing suicide or murdered by Stalin. His third wife was Rosa Kaganovich, the sister of Lazar Kaganovich, the head of Soviet industry. Stalin’s daughter (who in 1967 fled to the USA) then married Lazar’s son Mihail i.e. her step-mother’s nephew. Svetlana Stalin had a total of four husbands, three of them Jewish.

Your entire argument is based around ad verecundium, ad hominem, and in a few minutes it's going to be ad hominem as you call me a stormfags for thinking that Jews deserve to be criticized when they commit mass atrocities then claim all those atrocities are just propoganda from the White Army :D

Their tactics align, not their goals.

If you just have a problem with the tactics themselves and you think the end-state of a neutered politics is irrelevant, you're doing political philosophy wrong.

I'm proving that your site is full of shit and can't be used as a reliable source.

Beria wasn't a Jew. Not even a half Jew

You're an indoctrinated fool and clearly don't understand how real historians work. You'll believe in every idiotic propaganda if it supports your views.

>During Stalinism, the preferred Soviet policy was to keep sensitive posts in the hands of non-Poles. As a result, "all or nearly all of the directors (of the widely despised Ministry of Public Security of Poland) were Jewish" as noted by Polish journalist Teresa Torańska among others.[71][72] A recent study by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance showed that out of 450 people in director positions in the Ministry between 1944 and 1954, 167 (37.1%) were of Jewish ethnicity, while Jews made up only 1% of the post-war Polish population.[31]
I believe in overrepresentation of Jews in the MBP because this number 37.1% is based on actual historical research. At the same time what Torańska wrote can't be considered a reliable source.

Soros lobbied against communism, brainlet.
Do you people know anything about history or do you just "educate" yourself on memes?

>You'll believe in every idiotic propaganda if it supports your views.
Pot calling the kettle black it seems, as he posts from wikipedia as if it is God given truth on Earth and is never incorrect about anything, ever. Nope. Name one time wikipedia was wrong. That's right: never.

You're just blatantly ignoring any kind of contradictory evidence via ad verecundium, if that is how you were taught to debate history dialectical then you really ought to demand a refund from whatever university you attended. The majority of the higher echelons of the early Soviet Union was Jewish. It's just a fact.

Beria not being Jewish is revisionism btw, he was a Mingrelian Jew from Georgia

"In May 1953, two months after Stalin's death, Zoya Zarubina (Jewish), who had become a dean of the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages and a party secretary, heard at a confidential party meeting that Beria was concealing his Jewish origins."

Page 307
Special Tasks

Pavel and Anatoli Sudoplatov
Little, Brown and Co. 1995

>The Bolsheviks were mainly Jewish and got preferential treatment in the Gulags.
[citation needed]

As someone who has started identifying with combined Nationalist and many Socialist stances I found that despite hating the capitalist and being pro-union, the Leftists will lash out and attack you for wanting to control immigration.
Even when pointing out that an endless horde of millions of illiterate third worlders only benefits the Capitalists and will destroy communities and destroy and socialized medicine or UBI systems, the Leftist still lashes out and calls you a Nazi.
For some reason, the Leftist is unable to to realize that what he is, is a pawn of the capitalists he pretends to fight, by his diehard stance that we must never control immigration.
When faced with some sort of Nationalist Socialist, the Leftist will use every method at his disposal to poison the well of discussion, such as hopelessly and arbitrarily arguing semantics like saying that universal healthcare is not a socialist stance, as if that point achieves anything. This is nothing more than a poisoning the well tactic, to just bury the point in mud so as to never face it.

We come to the center of their beliefs, immigration and anti-nationalism. What I think should be discussed is, why are they so diehard for immigration and anti-nationalism? Do they not know that an out-of-group preference is destroyed by an in-group preference?
Do they not know that what they are is merely part of the left and right wing controlled by the Capitalists they allegedly fight? Throwing one leg in front of the other to benefit themselves in the current situation?

>Cultural Marxist

Source? Do you even ask yourself questions such as: how reliable are certain authors? Because apparently no one, except Zoya Zarubina heard this. It's obviously not in the documentary sources. And why would Beria conceal his Jewish origins?

The fun fact is how people like you believe every anecdotal evidence when it comes to "Jewish crimes" but don't believe in testimonies of hundreds people from many countries that gas chambers existed.

>Wikipedia
Kek, your source is literally this:

whiteheritage.org/showthread.php?pid=980

Just because you say common ground three times in one retarded post, doesn't make it true

>The Chad Purge.
>The Virgin Genocide.

Right wingers want to kill the rich Jews as well as the poor Jews and ensure that our ruling class is just as evil and exploitative but just 100% Christian

Straw man.
There's plenty of us commies who are against immigration.
I've been against the EU for years, in large parts because of the immigration policies enforced on us.
I do still believe we have a moral duty to help refugees created by us following US in their retarded imperialist wars, but of course would prefer if there were no refugees at all to help, and bring into the country.

This sentiment is shared by a huge number of socialists.

Nazis*

I'm sure most right-wingers are normal people who don't want to murder anyone.

They hated the Jews because they believed that Jews used their financial power to subvert and undermine German culture. The Nazis also accused them of profiteering from hyperinflation.

Basically they saw Jews and bankers as the same thing, with financial hegemony linking to cultural and social subversion.

>strawman because I for one don't do that
Congratulations on being the .0001% if that's even true, everywhere you go, every leftist group you go to, will always, ALWAYS be run by professional weasels who will say absolute anything it takes to get useful idiots to demand endless third world immigration despite it absolutely fucking destroying workers' rights and benefiting the Capitalists.

>Do you even ask yourself questions such as: how reliable are certain authors?
Yes. Do you? I didn't used to think that the Bolsheviks were so Jewish, until I questioned my own narrative.

>Why would Beria conceal his Jewish origins
Why was he shot? Oh yeah it's because he was a sociopathic murderer who pissed off the wrong people. Why would someone like that be paranoid or lie?
>My source
>Ad verecundium again
You're not really good at this dialectic thing, huh?

You're not very good at history, huh? And I don't think you know what ad veracundiam means.

>Oh yeah it's because he was a sociopathic murderer
That's not the reason why Beria was executed.

Underrated post

smartest post in this thread gets only this (you)

>You're not very good at history, huh?
No I'm pretty good
>And I don't think you know what ad veracundiam means.
>Can't even spell it right
It's an appeal to authority. X is wrong/right because it comes from this source I favor/hate.

It's anti-dialectical
>Beria wasn't executed for being a sociopath
Still doesn't mean he is less likely to lie and be paranoid